8-10 September 2019 | Odense
Habtamu Garomssa, Claudia Umanzor, and Alexander Lennart Schmidt, all team members of S2BMRC, contributed to the ongoing discussions within the CINet community.
The three researchers presented their latest research results on the 20th International CINet conference at Southern Denmark University in Odense (Denmark). During the presentation sessions, Habtamu, Claudia and Alexander got the opportunity to discuss with leading experts in their fields and receive valuable feedback. This will allow to further improve the ongoing research projects. Furthermore, S2BMRC could foster the relationship with the CINet community, strengthen existing relationships and build new ones.
Here is an overview of the three presented articles:
Habtamu Garomssa: UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURIALISM VIS A VIS DISCIPLINARY VARIANCE (THE CASE OF ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY)
Claudia Umanzor: INNOVATION DISTRICTS: A FORMAL PERSPECTIVE, FROM SLR TO CONTRIBUTIONS
The term innovation district was cited in a peer-reviewed article for the first time in 2005, as a shy synonym for technology districts in a comparative study among China and the USA, mainly focusing on the role of the state in such configurations. Today, the evolution of the "innovation districts" concept can also be understood from a more territorial perspective, making a point out of the high technology and innovation potential of neighbourhood-size districts. To identify the numerous concepts and research streams dealing with innovation districts, a systematic literature review (SLR) is considered the right approach for this paper, to understand the phenomena of innovation districts as key for economic success and applicability in the developing world.
Alexander Schmidt et al.: Paving the way for an era of continual disruption: Empirical reconciliation of Dynamic Capabilities, Business Model Innovation and Disruptive Innovation
Our results indicate that dynamic capabilities are a decisive antecedent to perform business model innovation, which in turn is positively associated with disruptiveness of innovation. Additionally, we provide empirical evidence that strong dynamic capabilities alone are not sufficient to be positively associated with disruption. Consequently, our study contributes to the ongoing scholarly discussions and advances theory building of disruption through a.) Linking the constructs of dynamic capabilities, business model innovation, and disruptive innovation, and b.) Revising the ex-ante view on disruptive innovation.